Bylaws Workgroup Statement Charts Course for Return to 20th Century

It may be the fastest decision a Baptist committee has ever reached. A workgroup within the SBC Executive Committee has assured us that most of the churches named in the Houston Chronicle’s sexualabuseexposé do not warrant any further investigation.

Late Saturday, the bylaws workgroup released a statement through Baptist Press. Both the content and the spirit of the statement are at serious odds with what we saw last week from the Executive Committee meeting.

Last week we saw leadership, particularly from SBC President J.D. Greear, that showed determination to move us forward in preventing and responding to sexual abuse. A somber and repentant spirit covered the meeting. Ten action steps were presented. Greear called for responses from the ten churches named by the Houston Chronicle.

The statement released by the bylaws workgroup responds, both directly and indirectly, to the events that took place earlier in the week. I see three major problems in this statement. Each one of these problems is a call to retreat. A call to retreat to failed attitudes and actions of the past regarding sexual abuse.

Problem #1: A Minimal Threshold For Action

How will we know when a church exhibits indifference to sexual abuse? There are four examples provided in the proposed change to Article III of the SBC constitution (listed as letters a-d) that would demonstrate a church has evidenced indifference to sexual abuse and is therefore not in friendly cooperation with the SBC.

a. employing a convicted sex offender
b. allowing a convicted sex offender to work as a volunteer in contact with minors
c. continuing to employ a person who unlawfully concealed from law enforcement information regarding the sexual abuse of any person by an employee or volunteer of the church, or
d. willfully disregarding compliance with mandatory child abuse reporting laws.

Here’s problem: The bylaw workgroup treats these as exhaustive – when the bylaw, as written, makes it clear they are not exhaustive, but rather serve as examples. How does it make this clear? By including the language immediately before the a-d list. It says, “Indifference can be evidenced by, among other things…” and then the four examples are listed. In other words, there may well be other things that would evidence indifference. But in the statement, the workgroup uses these four examples as a checklist. If none of the four appear to have been violated (within their in-depth two-day research!) then they are listed in the report as “no further inquiry warranted.”

But there may be 10 or 100 different ways a church could show indifference to sexual abuse. By taking the four examples as the only criteria the workgroup has effectively lowered the threshold for action so that only the most egregious and blatant cases would ever be examined.

Add to this lowered threshold the next problem and you have a perfect storm of inaction.

Problem #2: A Net With Gaping Holes

Of course we don’t want convicted sex offenders working with minors. That’s a starting point. That’s the low-hanging fruit. But anyone who’s read just a minimal amount on this subject knows that there are far, far too many abusers and molesters who will never fall within that category. Those for whom there will never be a criminal conviction. Maybe because of a statute of limitations. Maybe because victims decided they weren’t ready or didn’t know they should pursue criminal charges.

What about a church that knew of credible accusations in the past and still allowed someone to work with children? Apparently, the bylaw workgroup doesn’t see that as worthy of further investigation. Even though the staff member or volunteer had no prior convictions, there still might be other clear reasons they should not work with minors – and this very well could qualify as indifference.

Do you want to know how huge this gaping hole is? How large of a gap has the bylaw committee left by using only the threshold of “convicted sex offender”? Let me give you an example from recent SBC history. According to the criteria listed in this report, a church could hire Paul Pressler tomorrow to work with youth – and that church would not “warrant further inquiry.”

This report and these standards deserve to be shredded or incinerated at the same time the SBC Executive Committee is voting to replace the members of the bylaw workgroup.

And I’m not even to the third major problem I see with this report.

Problem #3: Return to Damage Control/PR Mode

There’s no doubt this workgroup aimed to pushback against Greear’s decision to repeat the names of the churches who had already been named in the Houston Chronicle article. The workgroup said,

we urge all members of the Executive Committee and messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention to avoid publicly calling the names of churches without having documentation of criminal convictions and giving prior notice to the church

First, notice we have the same problem as above: According to this workgroup, no one should say anything until a criminal conviction has taken place. That’s not acceptable.

Second, and more directly related to problem #3: I believe J.D.’s decision showed a kind of bold leadership we haven’t seen in the SBC for years. Without him specifically listing those ten churches, everyone goes back to business as normal. Unless he does that, no one thinks we’re really serious, including we ourselves. I wasn’t in the room but I know people were shocked. I was shocked as I read the tweets. Suddenly we went from a convention that made good speeches and was coming out with a solid curriculum in the summer to “Holy cow, we really are serious.”

This is a different day and a new way of operating. We really aren’t going back to the days when we swept things under the rug and pretended like they never happened. In all of the right things that happened last week, there was none that signaled a true heart-level shift more than this. It was the right thing to do.

As J.D. said:

Our job is to love and serve people, especially those who have suffered abuse. Our job is not to protect our reputation.

Saturday’s bylaw workgroup report sounds like it could have been written ten years ago, rather than two days. It sounds like we’ve learned nothing and are intent on keeping the same attitudes in place that have led to hundreds, possibly thousands of lives being devastated through sexual abuse. We cannot go back. And we cannot accept a report intent on pulling us backward.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Brent Hobbs

Brent Hobbs is lead pastor of New Song Fellowship in Virginia Beach, VA. Before that he pastored Severn Baptist Church in Severn, NC. He's a graduate of SBTS (M.Div.) & Dallas Baptist University. WebsiteTwitter

I don’t want to get into specific details about the ten churches named in the Houston Chronicle. But let me say this. If this bylaw group “cleared” churches who should not have been, churches who refuse to address this with transparency and honesty, this report will be exponentially more damaging than “naming” the churches in the first place.

February 25, 2019 12:45 pm

John R.

the bylaws subgroup took a giant whiff in their response to the President’s question.

I am reasonably familiar with one of the churches on the list.I have friends whose children were abused there. It may be that this church has taken enough meaningful steps and implemented significant change so that no reasonable person would think that disfellowshipping was a good idea. But I am not sure. I am open minded but a real investigation is in order. It’s quite possible that this church is an exemplar to the rest of the convention.
A real investigations and a truly detailed explanation of what the church has done would go much further than a wave with “These aren’t the droids you are looking for”.
A real investigation and a detailed report would be good for the church, the victims, the SBC and the community. At this point it’s the only thing that will suffice.

I am not sure JD naming 10 churches, many that have addressed their issues well was a very good idea. I would have preferred reporting on steps taken since the incidents. I would also like to see a harsher response to pastors and staff abusers. To me, their abuse is far worse and hurtful.

The victims of those churches received far more abuse when their abuse cases were covered up, they were gaslighted, threatened by the very ones who should have protected them and worse Alan. They needed to be called out and investigated.

February 25, 2019 10:35 am

John Wallace

It is very important that perpetrators and enablers be identified publicly for the sake of victims. Many victims of sexual abuse have been ostracized for making accusations. By calling out perpetrators and enablers we take part in vindicating accusers.

I’m more convinced than ever that JD’s tactic is pressure. He’s been loud and specific. Yes, SBC churches are autonomous, but they don’t live in a vacuum. His statements have clearly put pressure on the EC, but they have also put pressure on individual churches. So, even if the EC circles the wagons around the status quo, those churches have been exposed and they have a chance to respond too, both nationally (if they choose) and to their communities. They can let people know they have repented and fortified themselves against future troubles.

February 25, 2019 11:01 am

Tarheel_Dave

I wholeheartedly agree in principle with JDG and Brent… But I disagree in the wisdom of the process chosen by JDG and defended here.

So what exactly are you saying about the executive committee work group report and the individuals who released it?

Are you suggesting that one can hold to a position that a person or a group of people can make a mistake – Even series of mistakes – and err in process and tactics… And still be godly people looking to do the right thing? If you are I agree with you 100% and that’s exactly what I have said about JD Greear and I’d Bet many (most) of the people within the churches who have been sadly burdened and affected by sexual abuse Having took place in their midst..

If you’re not saying that….what are you saying?

February 25, 2019 2:04 pm

Jon

Who wrote the proposed Constitutional amendment? This committtee? Outside counsel? JD’s study group?

I was surprised there was an amendment ready to be recommended at JD’s report. Some of this looks like people aren’t talking behind the scenes enough before making announcements.

Some time ago, Trevin Wax wrote an article differentiating Cosmopolitans and Conventionalists in the SBC, and it seems that this is a battle between those two. JD is on the Cosmopolitan side and is encountering opposition from conventionalists.

Well, there’s this part of me that is hopeful such a story would be the most boring non-story in the Houston Chronicle one would find, because if the EC is guiding this process, making decisions on this process, then we should expect that the members of said committee have handled sexual abuse cases within their churches correctly.

However, if I am reading between the lines here, your insinuation is that I will be disappointed. However, hinting at such does not really move this conversation forward. If you have something, speak it plainly. Part of what poisons the process is having to sort through that which is strongly suspected, that which is possible, and that which is simply insinuated from a friend of a friend of a friend.

And I’ll go the next step in this discussion straight-up: I would be completely unsurprised if: 1) the Houston Chronicle is working on such an investigation; 2) they find that some of the people who are now trying to brush under the rug the problem of sexual abuse in the SBC are doing so out of their own self-interest. Who, I do not know, and will likely not know until said story is published.

February 25, 2019 4:47 pm

James Forbis

Can someone explain to me how and why Ken Alford is allowed to be a part of this process and have the positions he has within the SBC?

This is part of the problem with our nominations process. We’re supposed to have committees that do their homework and make good choices. And in a lot of cases they do. But that’s another example of a net with some pretty big holes in it. ::declines to give examples of egregiously terrible choices who should have never gotten anywhere near boards and committees::

Good article Brent. Neither I, nor any of us, can really know whether further action is needed with these churches or not. However, I do not see in anyway how the EC committee could have reached this conclusion so quickly. There is no way a thorough examination of the facts concerning all of these churches could have taken place. It has just been a matter of days. Inconsistent information and actions are coming from the EC. And just when they are about to name a new president. Whoever he is, hope he knows what he is getting into.

It was stated here by someone, I believe our good Bro. Miller, that the EC was ill-quipped to handle such a complicated and large issue as they presented their initial findings. This is apparently the case.

Ken Alford is one of the most inappropriate choices to chair this workgroup. He has no business even wading into the conversation given his history. Having served under him in the church following his “discretion” as he likes to describe it in Tampa, there’s a lot of red flags that have ignored over the years.

February 25, 2019 8:33 pm

Gus Nelson

I keep seeing phrases like “credible accusations” or “credible allegations” get into the discussion. While I don’t have a problem with churches not hiring someone to whom this applies, I’m not clear what this would mean in terms of the larger agenda here. I would, for instance, treat an arrest as a credible allegation, as few people are arrested on such charges without the police and prosecution having worked up the case pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to decisions about hiring and firing or about excluding people from volunteering in our churches.

After that, where do we draw the line? By definition we’re excluding allegations which lack credibility – who is going to judge and by what standard are we judging credibility? The recent episode with Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a good example here. His accuser seemed reasonable, decent and intelligent but her testimony lacked clarity and specificity. Were her allegations “credible?” Some say yes, some no. Often depends on your point of view.

Moreover, what happens when someone is “credibly” accused but it turns out the accuser was mistaken, confused or, worse, lying? The damage to the accused will likely be irreparable. Certainly we care about this as well.

I bring this up not because I think it’s a terrible idea to want to get churches behave carefully – I bring it up because it’s really easy to throw around a phrase like “credible accusation” but I don’t think it’s nearly as easy to put into practice as it sounds.

I don’t believe this question is nearly the obstacle people are making it out to be. Just because it may be difficult to determine where EXACTLY a line should be drawn, that must not stop us from admitting that there are many cases that are clearly credible and action must be taken. Let’s get the obvious ones right first and take our time considering how to deal with cases that are more difficult, ok? Deal?

February 25, 2019 10:11 pm

Michael White

I know [somewhat] a guy who was credibly accused and convicted although he wss innocent. But he trusted God throughout and later was vindicated. His name is Joseph. Of the coat of many colors fame.
As Christians we leave all of our ‘rights’ at the feet of Jesus and let Him lead and guide us through life. Sometimes it is right to invoke those rights [as Paul did as a Roman citizen] but sometimes we are to suffer for the Name.

So yes if we do not hire someone because they are credibly accused we might be doing him harm ad in fact adding to the harm already done to him. But his hope is in God not any man. It is God who upholds him. It is God who gives him worth. So it is better that we avoid hiring credibly accused people because we have vulnerable sheep to protect. God will take of His own. We are to uphold our duty to our immediate ‘family’ and especially the children enrusted to our care.

February 26, 2019 3:00 am

Gus Nelson

Michael: I agree – I’m not talking about individual churches, I’m talking about the SBC writ large. I guess since I was responding to the article, that was assumed. Sorry for my lack of clarity while asking for clarity!! 🙂

February 27, 2019 9:56 pm

Gus Nelson

Brent: I do agree there are obvious cases (I thought I made that clear). Moreover, for me this is not about a specific church making decisions about personnel (paid or volunteer) based on however that church might define the term credible. What I am concerned about is the SBC making a decision about disassociating a church based on “credible allegations” or having some kind of database for “offenders” based on “credible allegations” without clear direction on what the word credible means exactly. Can it wait? Sure. But at some point, if this is going to be the standard, there needs to be clarity and precision about it. That’s all I”m getting at.